Many topics in your memorial, and its vehement tone, I pass over without comment, because I do not wish to go farther in this unpleasant discussion than briefly to state the prominent grounds on which I justify my conduct. And I cannot but hope that when you come to look dispassionately at the matter, you will perceive that the warmth of your feelings has led you astray, that you have taken offence without sufficient cause, and that in fulminating your wrath at me, you have exhibited a temper which in the end may be more painful to yourselves than it can be to me. Not that I do not regret sincerely that I have so unexpectedly incurred your enmity, but because I suffer little when I am satisfied that I have done no wrong.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servent, J. H. HAMMOND.

(From the Charleston Observer.)
LETTER V.

PSALMODY---DIVINE AUTHORITY.

My Christian Friends,---In Letter IV. I entered on the argument in favor of the exclusive use of David's Psalms, and presented several considerations, tending, as I think, to establish the point at issue.

In the Observer of January 14, received since my last Letter, the Editor suggests the propriety of adhering strictly to the Scriptural argument respecting the exclusive use of David's Psalms, in order to render the discussion as brief as possible, or to avoid "running into too great prolixity." The suggestion is a very good one, but it comes up a little too late. If it had been made three months ago, and attended to, it would have saved my worthy opponent the labor of writing something like the one third of his numbers. I shall attend to the suggestion, and endeavor to confine myself, as far as possible, to the Scriptural argument. But as the argument of Mr. C. is to be followed and reviewed, it may lead me occasionally into partial digression, or into greater prolixity than would otherwise be necessary. I have no idea of following my learned friend through his long argument respecting the opinions and practices of individuals and the Church on the subject of Psalmody. I have neither the time, the will, the books, nor the ability, to engage in such a fruitless investiga. tion. Fruitless it is, for surely the "jure divine," or Divine author

ity on this subject, cannot be ascertained from Church History, except so far as that history is recorded in the Scriptures. We pur. pose, therefore, to give, as the Editor suggests, the "plain Scripture precept," and the "indubitable example" for the exclusive use of David's Psalms. But in deing so we will have to prove that the precept is plain, and the example indubitable, and this may require no little argument. A man may deny in one breath a truth or proposi⚫ tion which will require his antagonist a whole chapter to establish. For example, in my discourse 1 referred to the command of Hezekiah enjoining the use of "the words of David, and Asaph the Seer," as authority for the exclusive use of David's Psalms. This Mr. C. denies; and now it will require the half of this letter to prove that it is a "plain precept," not from Hezekiah, but from God, enjoining on the Old Testament Church the exclusive use of the inspired PsalterAnd if it is made to appear that this command of Hezekiah is a "plain precept" on this subject, then the "indubitable example" will follow of course. For all we have to do is to ask, who were members of this Old Testament Church confined exclusively to the use of David's Psalms? Who? Thousands of the first converts to Christianity--Simeon, Anna, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the inspired Apostles, and Jesus Christ himself, "the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords!"

I will endeavor to conduct the argument as briefly as possible. I hepe, Christian Friends, you will not grow impatient; if the Seceders are right on this subject, the other denominations are certainly very wrong, and we may just as well consider the matter carefully on this side of the tomb; it cannot be settled among ourselves on the other side.

Having in my last letter adduced three arguments in favor of the exclusive use of David's Psalms under the old dispensation, I now offer as a 4th argument, the command of Hezekiah and his Princes, 1 Chron. xxix. 30. The command runs thus: "Moreover, Hezekiah the King and the Princes commanded the Levites to sing praise unto the Lord with the words of David, and of Asaph the Seer." I view this injunction to use, in praise, "the words of David and of Asaph the Seer," as equivalent to a command to sing "David's Psalms.' By David's Psalms we mean the whole collection as it now stands, and by "the words of David and of Asaph the Seer," Hezekiah and his Princes meant David's Psalms, as the collection stood in their day. They did not intend that the Levites should not use any thing

not intend, as Mr. C. represents us, (No. 8,) that the Church is to be confined only to those attributed to David. "Even then," he says, "the Psalms of Asaph were to be sung as well as those of David." No one pleads for the exclusive use of the seventy-three ascribed to David. Nor did Hezekiah intend that the Levites should confine themselves entirely to "the words of David and Asaph," but that they should employ that whole collection of Hymns of which those two Poets were the chief composers.

I consider the command of King Hezekiah and his Princes, as cited above, as a command of God, enjoining the use---the exclusive use of this inspired collection of sacred songs. Mr. C., and those who coincide with him in opinion, contend that the injunction con. tained in the above cited passage, was a mere recommendation or command of Hezekiah and his Princes, Mr. C. asks,,,Does this prove God's Divine appointment, under the old economy of the Psalms of David?" And he replies, "by no means." Dr. Latta and others view it in the same light, not as God's, but as man's appointment. Let us examine this matter for a moment. It has been usual, I believe on our part, merely to present this command as a "plain precept" in favor of our position, and on the other hand it has been customary to deny it without much discussion, but now let us argue the case. Hezekiah, it is said, had no authority from God to enjoin the use of the words of David and Asaph the Seer," that is, David's Psalms--it was a mere matter of taste with him and his Princes---a mere "civil" regulation, as Dr. Latta intimates, page 96. Now what is the first thing that is said in this 29th chapter, respect. ing this pious and worthy king of Judah? It is said, verse 2d, that "he did that which was right in the sight of the Lord " This commendation has particular reference to the course which he pursued in regulating the worship of God, and restoring it to its former purity. Ahaz, his father, was a very bad man, and did that which was utterly wrong in God s sight, and among other evil deeds, he cut in pieces the vessels of God's house, and shut up the doors thereof. (2 Chron. xxviii. 24) But Hezekiah did that which was right in God's sight--he opened the doors of the Lord's house, and restored the Divine ordinances---and among other right things that he did, he enjoined the use of David's Psalms, or restored them, as well as other things, to their former place in Divine worship. But it would have been just as right, it will be said, if he had commanded the Le. vites to use the Song of Solomon, or portions of Job, Isaiah, or some other inspired poetry. I deny the correctness of this opinion. The

Song of Solomon, the poetical parts of Isaiah, Jeremiah, &c. were never designed to be used in the praise of God; but of this again. But admitting that it would have been right for Hezekiah and his Princes to have commanded the Levites to use other Divine songs instead of, or in addition to those of David, would it have been equally as acceptable to God for the King in the exercise of his taste or judgment, or "civil authority," to have commanded the use of human compositions instead of, or in addition to "the words of David and Asaph?" Let it be remembered, Christian friends, this is the great point in dispute. If some great Doctor had lived previous to the reign of Hezekiah, and had dreadfully mutilated the Psalms of David to suit his own caprice, and, in addition to his mutilation of these Divine songs, had composed some two or three books of poetic pieces entirely his own, would it have been as right for the King and his Princes to have commanded the use of these human compositions, as the Divine songs of David and of Asaph? What says brother C? He certainly replies in the negative. I defy any good man in Christendom, who understands the subject, to give any thing else than an emphatic No, to the above interrogatory. But why would it have been wrong for the King and his Courtiers, in regulating and reinstating the pure worship of God in His Temple, to have commanded the use of human compositions instead of David's Psalms? No good reason can be given but this. It was God's will--it was the Divine appointment---and not the taste or prejudice of the King and his Court, that the Psalms of David should be sung in Divine worship; and, therefore, the King and his Princes acting under the Divine direction, enjoined the use of this inspired collection, and of no other songs, either Divine or human.

If it was right for Hezekiah and his princes to exercise their judgment, their "civil authority," independent of all Divine authority, in selecting Psalms and Hymns for the worship of God, it was proper for other Kings and their Courts to follow the inclinations of their hearts in the same matter, Ahaz the father, and Manasseh the son of Hezekiah. were both very bad men and wicked rulers. According to the reasoning of our opponents, they and their Princes had a right to command the Levites to sing just such Psalms and Hymns as they might think proper to appoint; for if Hezekiah and his Court had a right to make their own selection of Hymns for Divine worship, so had other Kings and their Courts. But suppose, (and it is a very supposable case,) that Ahaz or Manasseh had, in exercising this supposed right, laid aside the Psalms of David, and commanded the use of

a collection of human songs, (for this is the point at issue,) would their conduct have been as acceptable in the sight of God, as the conduct of Hezekiah and his Princes? Our opponents say no; they are compelled to say no, though the admission may come from some of them with reluctance. But why was the course pursued by Hezekiah and his Princes more acceptable, by far, than the conduct of Ahaz and Manasseh would have been in the case supposed? Because Hezekiah and his Court acted according to Divine appointment in the matter. They knew that the whole pattern of God's house had been given to David by the Spirit---that the services of the Levites were divinely arranged, both as to the manner and the matter of praise. They knew that God had set apart King David to the office of Psalmist for the express purpose of furnishing the Church with a collection of inspired Hymns, and that Asaph and others had been inspired to furnish a certain number---that this collection had always been used in the Church since the days of David with Divine approbation. In restoring Divine worship to its former purity, they adopted no new measures, but commanded the use of those instruments and of those services and songs which God had previously authorized; and the fact, they expressly enjoined the Levites to sing the words of David and Asaph---that is, David's Psalms, confining them to this collection---is a strong proof that it was Divinely authorized to be used exclusively in the worship of God under the Old Testament dispensation.

Suffer me to make an additional remark or two touching this com. mand of Hezekiah. Our opponents would have the world believe that when the King and his Princes opened the Temple and restored the pure worship of God, they did every thing according to Divine appointment, except making a selection of Hymns in which the works, and wonders, and perfections of Jehovah might be suitably extolled. In this mafter, which was certainly not one of minor importance, or devoid of difficulty, they were left to the exercise of "private judgment." We read in 2 Chron. xxiv. 15. that the Levites, in cleansing the house of the Lord, acted according to Divine appointment and that the King, in setting the Levites to attend to instrumental music, acted by the same authority. (verse 25.) And in the next chapter we are informed that the King, his Princes, and all the congregation took counsel---deliberated about keeping the Passover the second month. (verse 2.) But although they consulted about the matter, the ordinance itself was no new contrivance of "the King and his Princes"--they introduced nothing on the score of exnedic